Leonard Amicola, owner of the property, and Lisa Primeggia and Andrea Andrews, owners of the prospective business (children’s clothing store), were present for this application.

Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on the change of use application for the children’s clothing store at 119 Grand Street. He asked if there were any members of the public present who wished to comment on this application, to which there were none.

Ms. Andrews distributed to the board members a colored photograph showing what the signage on the windows would look like. The logo for the store, Groovy on Grand, would be rendered in bright “surf” colors. The largest sign on the window facing the front would take up 5.8 square feet of the 36 square feet of window space. The sign on the opposite window would cover almost 3 square feet. The smaller side window sign would be rendered in the same style and colors. This sign on the side window would give the store’s web site address. Ms. Andrews noted that the proposed signage meets the code requirements for window signs.

Chairman Kehoe asked if this sign application has been placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB), to which Ms. Andrews said that it has. The meeting would take place on Wednesday, June 21st. The Village Engineer said that the VEB would review the sign and then provide their comments to the Planning Board. The Planning Board could then approve the sign at the June 27th Planning Board meeting. Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board could close the public hearing on the change of use application tonight. Then, it would simply be a matter of approving the sign at the next meeting. Chairman Kehoe noted that the VEB is an advisory board. The Planning Board has the ultimate approval authority for the sign.

The Village Engineer told the board that the Planning Board has the authority to waive the on-site parking requirements for this change of use application. Mr. Luntz said that he thought it would be reasonable for the Planning Board to waive this requirement. Mr. Sharma asked if the parking requirements for the former business/professional use (accountant’s office) are the same as for the proposed retail use, to which the Village Engineer said that the parking requirements are the same. There are two parking spaces required; the Planning Board would be waiving two spaces.

The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board should consider in its review the type of business being proposed. Some businesses require large deliveries, which would not be suitable for this area of the Village. The Village Engineer said that, as he understands it, the deliveries for the children’s clothing store would be relatively small and spread out. The clothing would be delivered twice a week in flat boxes by Federal Express. In his view, this would be an appropriate type of business for the Upper Village.

Mr. Sharma said that he did not see any problems with this change of use application.

Chairman Kehoe closed the public hearing.

Chairman Kehoe stated that a draft resolution has been prepared for this application. The draft resolution contains the following condition: “that the proposed sign be reviewed by the VEB and the Village Engineer for compliance prior to installation.”

Chairman Kehoe suggested that the following sentence should be added to this condition: “After review of the sign by the VEB, the Applicant must come back before the Planning Board for approval of the sign.”

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this change of use application with the condition, just noted, regarding the sign. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on the Sung Sing Realty application for the proposed dumpster enclosure. He asked if there was anyone present in the audience with questions or comments on this application, to which there were none.

The Village Engineer stated that, as noted at the last meeting, the DPW had some comments/issues to be addressed regarding the gate and the fencing for the dumpster area.

The Village Engineer stated that the owners of the Samurai Restaurant were unable to attend the meeting tonight. He spoke to them by telephone regarding the Planning Board’s questions from the previous meeting. They described to him the nightly procedure that would be used for dumping the garbage. The clean-up staff at the restaurant typically brings out the garbage each night after closing. The restaurant closes at 10:00 P.M. The garbage would be collected and put on a cart to be wheeled over to the new dumpster area. The Village Engineer noted that the clean-up staff would clean up the parking lot and dumpster area when required.

Chairman Kehoe asked how the Village Engineer’s office handles complaints about garbage in the Village. The Village Engineer told Chairman Kehoe that Peter Anfiteatro from his (the Engineer’s) office does the code enforcement on such matters.

The Village Engineer stated that the DPW has requested that the dumpster enclosure have two gates instead of just one. The DPW also wants the asphalt pavement in the entrance drive to be squared off instead of rounded. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant’s current drawings do not reflect these (the DPW’s) modifications. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could make it a condition of the approval that the current drawings be revised to reflect these modifications.

The Village Engineer noted to the board members that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies have been awarded to the Village for sidewalk improvements on Clinton and Wayne Streets. The new dumpster enclosure for the restaurant would (also) serve to improve the looks of this area. The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s proposal for a dumpster enclosure includes both a grease and a refuse dumpster.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments on this application, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe closed the public hearing.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution with the following three conditions:

1. that, as requested by the DPW, the dumpster enclosure have two gates.

2. that, as requested by the DPW, the asphalt pavement in the entrance drive to the gated area be squared off instead of rounded.

3. that the Applicant’s drawings (S-1 and S-2) be revised to reflect these (the DPW’s) changes.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the aforementioned three conditions. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Michael Bergen, Superintendent of Grounds at Sky View Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, and John Cohen, Architect, were present for this application.

Mr. Cohen stated that the purpose of this proposal is to expand the previously approved terrace, which is now under construction at the south side of the building. The 650 square-foot expansion of the terrace, now being proposed, would serve as a connection between the main building and the approved 10’ x 40’ terrace. Mr. Cohen noted that the Applicant is proposing a fence to screen the unsightly mechanical equipment of the sewer pump station in the back. As he understands it, there was an alternative to the fence screening discussed last time. The alternative, which was preferable to the Planning Board, would be to bury the mechanical equipment in the ground.

Mr. Cohen distributed to the board members a new detail sheet showing the fence and gates. Mr. Bergen noted that the fence would provide screening of the sewer pump and tank for the Sky View residents using the new terrace. The Village Engineer said that the utility easement boundaries should be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s). He would have to meet with the DPW to mark out these boundaries. The fence could be located on the boundary line but not within the easement area. The Village Engineer explained that the DPW might need that area within the easement to do maintenance work at the sewer pump station.

Ms. Allen noted that the fence being proposed is very long. She asked why the fence had to be this long, to which Mr. Cohen said that they were trying to shield from the residents’ view the unsightly equipment at the sewer pump station. Ms. Allen noted that the fence, as it is now being proposed, would block the view of the river. The bottom bay would be cut off from view. Mr. Cohen told Ms. Allen that he had not yet done an elevation to see how much of the river would be obscured. Ms. Allen stated that, in order for the Planning Board to be able to consider the proposal for the fence, the board would have to have more of a sense of how much of the river would be obstructed from view.

Mr. Cohen thought that the nursing home residents would be better served if the unsightly equipment could be buried in the ground. Mr. Luntz thought that the Village should look into this matter. The Village Engineer stated that he would have to reread the easement agreement between Sky View and the Village to see if there was any mention about burying the equipment. He personally did not think that it would state anywhere in the agreement that this equipment has to be buried. The present system is working in a satisfactory manner. Nothing is freezing up in the wintertime.

Mr. Cohen asked if anyone had discussed putting a fence around the pit itself. Mr. Bergen noted that if it were done in this way, it would require one-half the amount of fence, and the view would not be obstructed.

The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Cohen that if they intend to screen from view the generator control panel, then the Applicant’s revised plan should show the location of this panel.

The Village Engineer said that the DPW would have to have access to the chemical feed pumps.

The Village Engineer stated that the DPW should be involved in any future discussions relating to the sewer pump station. The Village might decide, in the end, to bury the mechanical equipment. He suggested that the Village could discuss this matter with Sky View.

Mr. Bergen said that, with respect to the sewer pump station, they could “live with” the brick building but the pump and tank are eyesores.

Chairman Kehoe noted that there are significant grade changes in this location in the back of the building, to which Mr. Bergen said that the new patio (terrace) would “end up finished grade.” When the residents come out the back door, they will be able to walk, front to back, at the same level. Mr. Cohen noted that, with respect to the fence, the line of sight would have to be refined to see what the impact on the view of the river would be. Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Cohen that, during the site plan review, the Planning Board would be agreeable to discussing a solution to this matter of the fence.

The Village Engineer noted that the proposed fence is not a part of the special use permit but is a site plan-related issue for the Planning Board. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could make its recommendation to the Village Board regarding the amendment to the special use permit. The Planning Board could then discuss the fence when the Applicant comes back before the board with an amended site plan application.

Ms. Allen told those present that when she recently visited the Sky View site, she noticed a pit, eight feet deep, in the area in the back where the construction is taking place. She wanted to know what the purpose of this pit is. Mr. Bergen said that they intend to use this “pit” area as a storage space. When they excavated for the new terrace, they had to go down eight feet before they hit bedrock. They decided to make storage space out of the newly excavated area. Mr. Bergen noted that they intend to make storage space out of the entire area beneath the new and expanded terrace. They do not have enough storage space in the existing building. Ms. Allen asked if this storage area was a part of the plan for the previously approved terrace, to which Mr. Bergen said that it was not. However, plans were submitted to the Village Engineer during the building permit application process.

Mr. Cohen noted again that they had to go down that deep (eight feet) to hit bedrock. He said, “The existing building is on bedrock, so anything abutting it has to be on bedrock.” Mr. Luntz said that what Mr. Cohen is describing is an engineering solution. Ms. Allen wanted to know when the idea of putting in storage came about, to which the Village Engineer said that he would have to go back to his office and review the plans that have been submitted. The plan for the storage space might actually be an amended plan, which would be submitted as part of an application for a building permit amendment. He would check to see if a building permit amendment was ever issued.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the Applicant’s creation of a subterranean storage area should be considered a substantive change to the plans or if it should be considered a technical/engineering issue. He personally did not know. The Village Engineer suggested that, in order to resolve this matter, the Applicant could revise their amended special use permit application to include the subterranean storage area beneath the terrace. Ms. Allen said that her concern is that it is often unclear what is happening at the Sky View site. The Planning Board did not know about the new storage space until tonight. The storage space was never approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Sharma said that, “there are some things that have an impact on our (the Planning Board’s) thinking, and other things are moot points.”
He questioned if this matter about the storage space should have a significant effect on the Planning Board’s thinking. Ms. Allen said that this matter of the new storage space is, perhaps, a small point, but it is indicative of the Village’s past experience with Sky View. Mr. Cohen said that, when he met with the Assistant Building Inspector, Joe Sperber, in the field, he explained the change that was being made. He gave Mr. Sperber sketches of the originally approved plans. The Village Engineer suggested that perhaps Mr. Sperber considered this to be a relatively minor change and classified it as a “field change.” Mr. Luntz said that in his view this is an engineering matter. He (Mr. Luntz) would not consider it to be a site plan-related issue.

Mr. Cohen told the board that he would try to update the plans so that “everything is clear [to the board members] for the next meeting.”

The Village Engineer suggested that the letter to the Village Board could mention the site plan issues the Planning Board would be looking at if the amended special permit is approved and the Applicant comes back to the Planning Board. Ms. Allen thought that the Planning Board should see a vertical profile before making a recommendation to the Village Board. Chairman Kehoe thought that the Planning Board should move forward tonight with the recommendation to the Village Board. The Planning Board would be reviewing the site-related issues later on and, if need be, could request at that time that certain modifications be made to the Applicant’s plan(s). He noted that the Planning Board is under no obligation to approve the Applicant’s amended site plan, if they are “not happy” with it.

The Village Engineer said that, in the letter to the Village Board, the Planning Board should note that the Applicant’s terrace has been modified to include storage space beneath it. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant might want to amend their application to the Village Board to include the subterranean storage space. If the Village Board were to approve the amended special permit, then the permit would cover both the terrace and the basement (storage area) beneath. Mr. Andrews suggested that the Planning Board could recommend that the application be modified to show the storage space. The letter to the Village Board could say that the new storage space is a matter that the Planning Board is aware of, and if agreeable to the Village Board, the Applicant’s plan(s) should be modified to show that
storage space.

Mr. Cohen told the Planning Board that the subject storage area would only be available to the staff at Sky View.

Mr. Cohen distributed to the five board members revised plans showing the storage area. He noted that there would be some further changes to these plans based on the discussion that has taken place tonight.

Chairman Kehoe asked if, in the Village Board’s review of the amended special permit application, the Village Board would spend time on site plan issues, to which the Village Engineer stated that the Village Board’s “issue” is the use. The Village Board is concerned with the overall use of the property.

Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board does not yet have the elevation plans, to which the Village Engineer replied that the elevations are on page A3 of the “new” plans that were just submitted tonight.

Ms. Allen brought up the issue of emergency vehicle access to the back of the building. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could recommend to the Village Board that, before issuing the amended special permit, the Village Board obtain a recommendation from the Fire Department on this matter regarding access.

Ms. Allen said that it is her understanding the Village had made an arrangement with Sky View regarding the installation of a grinder for Sky View’s sewage. To date, the grinder has not been installed. Ms. Allen wanted to know if the Village Board’s approval could be contingent upon Sky View’s installing this grinder. The Village Engineer noted that there had been, and continues to be, an issue as to the type of sewage at Sky View (rags and other pump-clogging debris in the sewage). He, too, believes that there was an arrangement made to install a grinder. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could bring up this matter in its recommendation letter. The Planning Board could recommend to the Village Board that this application be approved subject to Sky View’s installing the
grinder.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board’s recommendation letter would have to be prepared in time for the Village Board meeting of Monday, June 19th. The Planning Board secretary told him that the deadline is Wednesday at 4 P.M. He would not be available tomorrow (Wednesday) to prepare the memorandum. Ms. Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board secretary could let the Village Manager’s office know that the Planning Board’s recommendation is forthcoming. The item could then be placed on the Village Board’s meeting agenda. The Village Board packets go out on Friday. The letter could be prepared and submitted Thursday afternoon in time for the packets.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the letter to the Village Board should include the comments made tonight about obtaining a recommendation from the Fire Department. The letter should also include the comments about Sky View being required to install a grinder.

Chairman Kehoe said that it should also be stated in the letter that any revised plans submitted to the Village Board should include the new storage space. A note should be added to the plans giving the square footage of the terrace and basement area(s).

The Village Engineer noted that the 650 square-foot patio (terrace) being proposed is a relatively small expansion of the use of the property. The use expansion or increase is relatively minor. He suggested that in its recommendation to the Village Board, the Planning Board would want to separate this “use” issue from the site plan issues.

Mr. Cohen noted that there would be no increase in the population of the building. There would just be more space for patients to spend time outdoors. Mr. Bergen noted further that for the physical therapy of the patients, the staff could walk the patients back and forth on the new terrace(s) instead of inside in the hallways.

Chairman Kehoe said that it would appear from the discussion that has taken place tonight that the Planning Board intends to make a favorable recommendation on the amended special permit to the Village Board. The letter to the Village Board should incorporate the comments/issues that were brought up at the meeting tonight. Mr. Andrews said that in the letter the Planning Board should recommend that the Village Board consider the modification to the amended special permit to reflect the new storage space. The Village Engineer stated that the letter should also say that the Applicant’s plans should be revised accordingly, and a note should be added giving the “new” total square footage.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board on the Applicant’s request for an amended special permit. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews and seconded by Mr. Sharma.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments. Ms. Allen told the other members that she is going to oppose making a favorable recommendation tonight. The Planning Board members received new information and a new site plan tonight, which they did not have enough time to review. Under these circumstances, she would object to the Planning Board making this recommendation.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe asked for a vote on making a favorable recommendation to the Village Board. The vote was 4 in favor and 1 opposed. The vote was as follows:

Chairman Kehoe – Aye

Fran Allen – Nay

Vincent Andrews – Aye

Robert Luntz – Aye

Deven Sharma – Aye

Ms. Allen told the Applicant that, in the future, the application materials should be brought in on time for the packets, which are delivered to the board members on the Friday before the Tuesday board meeting. She noted that reviewing a new site plan the very night of the meeting is difficult for the board members. Mr. Cohen told the board that the changes to the site plan resulted from the excavation, which just took place last week. He was unable to prepare the plan(s) in time for the packets.

Julie Evans, Architect for the Applicant, and Neal Haber, owner of the property, were present.

Mr. Haber said that he and his wife’s house was the subject of a fire on July 1, 2005. The house is a one-story ranch. He and his wife decided that, in the reconstruction of the house, they would add a second-story, which would increase the amount of square footage. There would be bedrooms on the new second floor.

Mr. Haber told the Planning Board that during the building permit application process they were advised that they might need a variance. They went before the Zoning Board of Appeals and were granted the variance on January 12, 2006. Ms. Evans explained the situation, which prompted Mr. & Mrs. Haber to apply for the variance. When the house was originally constructed in 1949, there was a non-conforming side yard. The homeowner at that time was granted a variance from the side yard setback requirement. Even though the current property owner was not changing the footprint of the house at all, there was a question as to whether or not adding a second story requires a variance. Mr. & Mrs. Haber decided to apply to the ZBA for the variance, and it was granted.

Ms. Evans stated that, in order to move forward with the reconstruction effort, the Applicant needs a demolition permit to take down much of the existing structure.

Ms. Evans noted that she was in the process of completing the design and making up the plans for the building permit application when she was told by the Village Engineer that the Applicant would need to come before the Planning Board for a minor site plan review.

Ms. Evan stated that the application materials submitted to the board include the required drawings for a minor site plan review. She has brought with her tonight photographs of the neighborhood to put this project in its proper context. Ms. Evans noted that Mr. & Mrs. Haber’s house is the only ranch house on the block. It is atypical in terms of its mass. Ms. Allen asked what the height of the highest ridgeline would be with the addition being proposed, to which Mr. Haber thought it would be approximately 23 feet. Ms. Evans said, no, that it would be more like 28 feet to the highest ridgeline. Chairman Kehoe asked if the houses on both sides of the Haber’s house are two-story houses, to which Mr. Haber said that they are. Mr. Haber noted that, even with the second story being
proposed, their house would not be the same height as the next door neighbor’s house to the west. This neighbor’s house is (would be) about 3? feet higher than theirs.

Mr. Sharma noted that, in the Village Code, the maximum height requirement for a single-family dwelling is 35 feet, so the height is not an issue.

Mr. Sharma asked what the site plan modifications are that the Planning Board should be considering tonight. The Village Engineer explained why he felt the Applicant should come before the board. In reviewing a minor site plan, the Planning Board not only looks at site-related issues but also acts as an architectural review board. If an entirely new house were being built, the Planning Board would be reviewing the site plan issues. In this case, the footprint of the house is the same. The house is being demolished down to its foundation and being rebuilt. The site-related issues are probably not that much of a concern, however, he felt that the Planning Board should look at the architectural elements/design.

Mr. Haber said that they do not believe any trees would be affected by the reconstruction project. There is a tree in the back of the property in the area where they are putting in a retaining wall. Mr. Haber explained that they have had problems in the past with water flowing down into the corner of the house. They are presuming that this tree in the back would not be affected by the wall construction.

Ms. Evans told the board members that they are trying to improve the relationship to grade that the present house now has. They are making minor changes to help improve that situation. For example, they are raising the first floor level by 3 inches.

Chairman Kehoe asked if it would be “all gravel” between the house and the new retaining wall, to which Mr. Haber said that there would be gravel inside that bed. Chairman Kehoe asked if water is going to be behind that wall. Ms. Evans stated that part of the modular concrete wall is failing so some of what is being proposed is “repairs.” When they “hook around” to the back corner, they are going to take a minimum approach to tapering down the wall and, in so far as the drainage is concerned, hold back as much as they need to protect that corner.

Chairman Kehoe asked what zoning district the house is in, to which Ms. Evans said RA-9.

Mr. Luntz said that, from the plans submitted, it looks like Mr. & Mrs. Haber are going to have a lovely new house. He was pleased with the elevation plans submitted.

Mr. Haber stated that, as far as the exterior treatment of the house is concerned, they would probably have shingles below and clapboard above. The shingles would be allowed to weather to a natural patina. They would prefer a light, as opposed to a dark, surface treatment.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments or questions on this application, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Ms. Allen and Mr. Sharma abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Luntz and Sharma abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Mr. Luntz abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Andrews and Luntz abstained.

6. ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:08 P.M.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Mills,

SECRETARY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 for Sung Sing Realty Corp., hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at Clinton Street and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 1 Lot 83 (formerly #13 104 7); and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is for a dumpster enclosure for use by the restaurant, located on 352 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 1 Lots 74, 75), said properties owned by Sung Sing Realty Corp.; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the amended site plan application as shown on drawing S-1 entitled “Proposed Site Plan & Plant Legend” and drawing S-2 entitled “Dumpster Enclosure Details,” prepared by John Power, Architect, dated March 22, 2006, last revised April 7, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1) that, as requested by the DPW, the dumpster enclosure have two gates.

2) that, as requested by the DPW, the asphalt pavement in the entrance drive to the gated area be squared off instead of rounded.

3) that the Applicant’s drawings (S-1 and S-2) be revised to reflect these (the DPW’s) changes.

In the event that this amended site plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

The Planning Board of the Village of

Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairperson

Fran Allen

Vincent Andrews

Robert Luntz

Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, June 13, 2006.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on a Change of Use application on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 for Lisa Primeggia and Andrea K. Andrews, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property owned by Leonard Amicola and located at 119 Grand Street. The property is in the C-1 Zoning District and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 24 (formerly #38 225 6A); and

WHEREAS, the proposed Change of Use is from a C.P.A. office to a children’s clothing store; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated; and

WHEREAS, as permitted under Section 230-35 of the Village Code, the Planning Board waived the two off-street parking requirements as part of its approval of this application.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Change of Use application, as shown on application materials submitted to the Planning Board on May 18, 2006, be approved subject to the following condition:

that the proposed sign be reviewed by the VEB and the Village Engineer for compliance prior to installation. After the review of the sign by the VEB, the Applicant must come back before the Planning Board for approval of the sign.

In the event that this Change of Use is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

The Planning Board of the Village of

Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairperson

Fran Allen

Vincent Andrews

Robert Luntz

Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, June 13, 2006.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 for Neal & Suzanne Haber, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 7 Sunset Drive and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 7 Lot 4; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for the reconstruction of a one-family dwelling; and

WHEREAS, the house, which was damaged by fire, would be rebuilt on the existing foundation with no change to the footprint; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.